A few years ago when we first took a look through David Cronenberg‘s filmography, we we wrote that it had been a long journey to “respectability” for the eminent Canadian director. But that was just after a string of films (“A History of Violence,” “Eastern Promises” and “A Dangerous Method“) that suggested that Cronenberg had perhaps hung up his technophiliac/technophobic psych/body horror spurs for good, and that he was drifting into a more stately and accessible phase of his career. After only few prior dalliances with the mainstream, Cronenberg looked ready to settle down and go steady.
But while we’re pretty big fans of all three of those films, perhaps he sensed the definite undercurrent of dismay at that assessment last time. His two films since then — “Cosmopolis” and “Maps to the Stars” — may not signal any sort of a return to the clinical yet visceral unease of his early works, but nor are they in any real sense mainstream. Furthermore, they manage to be non-mainstream in very different ways: “Cosmopolis” is smooth and impenetrable and gun-metal gray; the star-studded ‘Maps’ is splashy, messy, grotesque and even (a first for the filmmaker) kind of self-consciously tacky. Perhaps the obvious thing for him to have done after that would have been to take on a prestige TV show. However, Cronenberg dodged the bullet of season 2 of “True Detective,” and for all that he’s an outspoken, often acerbic commentator on the industry and has in the past mooted sequels to “Eastern Promises” and “The Fly” and spoken at length about unmade what-ifs, his next project is really anyone’s guess. Not just in terms of title and provenance, but type: it could really be anything, in any genre, and how many 72 year-old directors can we say that about? Cronenberg continues to surprise, and to divide, and to zag just when we think he’ll predictably zig, and huge fans that we are, we wouldn’t have it any other way.
With the brilliant “The Brood” newly minted as the fifth (and almost certainly not final) Cronenberg title to be added to the Criterion Collection (after “Videodrome,” “Naked Lunch,” “Scanners” and “Dead Ringers“) here’s our assessment of Cronenberg’s ever-evolving, ever-mutating career.
“Stereo” (1969)
As with many film debuts from auteurs of long standing “Stereo” is probably of interest mainly to completists, and to fans anxious the trace the origin story behind one of the most original and idiosyncratic cinematic imaginations of our time. And on that level, it’s kind of heartening, because “Stereo,” while brimming with the same weird concerns and themes that mark some of the earliest and best of Cronenberg’s work, is no masterpiece — it’s clearly the work of a young man (Cronenberg was 26) learning filmmaking by doing. It’s a kind of short-movie concept stretched out to just-about-feature length (Cronenberg had two shorts under his belt before starting on it, and ‘Stereo’ is only 65 minutes long), the film is delivered as an educational/promotional video sponsored by a large plastics conglomerate and it shows the ever-cerebral filmmaker at his most emotionally removed. A black-and-white oddity, it centers on a nameless man (Ronald Mlodzik, a frequent early Cronenberg collaborator) who is brought to a compound to take part in a series of experiments wherein sexual activity is used to bolster telepathic abilities within polymorphous groups designed to replace the “outmoded” family unit model. Undone by a generally detached air, and by lengthy, choking narration (a factor of shooting without sync sound due to the noise of the camera), ‘Stereo’ (and arguably his next feature too) is most valuable today as a document of Cronenberg the student, the filmmaker-in-gestation, searching for, but not yet finding that perfect balance between kink, thought experiment and actual entertainment. [C]
“Crimes of the Future” (1970)
From the very same thematic and formal stable as “Stereo,” the 70-min “Crimes of the Feature” also stars Ronald Mlodzik and was also shot silently, with narration and various sound effects added after the fact. This time, however we get a dose of color, in the film stock if not necessarily in the script, a more overtly satirical tone and Mlodzik’s character gets a name (and how!): Adrian Tripod. Tripod is the director of a dermatological clinic sleazily named The House of Skin, but this clinic exists in an apocalyptic dystopia in which deadly cosmetics have killed off all sexually mature women. The remaining men try to adjust to this new reality in predictably Cronenbergian ways: sometimes they’re benign, as with those who get their fingernails painted as a dainty feminine embellishment; sometimes they’re grotesquely invasive, as with the man who parodies childbirth by growing extra modified organs in his body and having them removed. And sometimes, they’re disturbingly perverse as with the group of pedophiles holding a five-year-old girl hostage who try to encourage Tripod, searching for his old mentor, to mate with her. Oh, and these men also produce a weird foam that must be siphoned from their bodies, because there’s not enough freaky shit going on elsewhere. Honestly, in this and all other descriptions, “Crimes of the Future” sounds a whole lot more fascinating than it actually is: it’s a more interesting film to read/write about than to watch, which just goes to show how Cronenberg at this early stage was still closer to a kind of literary, idea-based storytelling, and had not yet mastered the filmmaking side of the equation. Ideas-wise, it’s a heady trip, but sitting through “Crimes of the Future” even with its slim running time, is a slog. [C]
I am a big fan of Cronenberg. I have seen almost all of his films (just "Stereo" and "Maps to the Stars" are left to complete the list). I have also read "Cronenberg on Cronenberg" book, that really shed a light on the background of these films and the director.
I agree with most of the reviews here, very good insights. I do also think that "Videodrome" was probably the best Cronenberg film ever made (so much technophobia and technophilia at the same time, very McLuhan-inspired media perception as well). Only few notes:
eXistenZ is underrated film in my opinion. Considering the new renaissance of virtual reality, this film is even more relevant today. Cronenberg\’s vision is accurate to the uncanny level (of course if you take the body-horror part as a metaphor). For someone involved in games and virtual reality – this is one of the best films in ever made.
I was also very glad to see "Cosmopolis", felt much more Cronenbergian than the three previous films. While maybe it is not one of the best films of his, but it is still great. It is a good reflection of today\’s new-rich, who are often very young entrepreneurs who have good programming and math skills and use their new technology to play in the old world systems and win. The film did have more potential than it managed to fulfill.
Thank you for this article!
Both Maps to the Stars and Cosmopolis are Fresh on Rottentomaotes, which means a majority of critics liked both films. MTTS is a brilliant film, and the one that Julianne Moore deserved her Oscar for. She won the Palm d\’Or at Cannes as Best Actress for Maps, and many other awards. It\’s a far superior film to Still Alice, and 20 years from now, Maps will be revered while Still Alice is viewed as a glorified Lifetime TV movie. I also agree that the rating of C for the already highly rated Cosmopolis doesn\’t make any sense now. If anything, it gets better with age.
It\’s all subjective from who writes what. I mean, Maps to the stars deserves an F, but whatever.
The Dead Zone for me. Watched again earlier this year after last seeing it 20 odd years ago. Still a wonderful movie to watch.
Wonder why Cosmopolis got a good reviews from The Playlist/Indiwire critics like E.Kohn(B),A.Thompson(A-),N.M.Smith(B-)J.Kiang(B+)D.Taylor(B+)and suddenly it gets C.This movie was one the bests movies of 2012.
Good overall, but A Dangerous Method and Spider are way better than Maps to the Stars.
His novel "Consumed" is excellent. Just the kind of weird paranoid body horror type stuff that he\’s done in the movies he wrote himself.
As a long time fan, I have to admit that his latest features have been less interesting to me. I\’m a big fan of his 70s, 80s and 90s output.
I never understand why David is consistently overlooked? You look at lists of philosophy driven films and never see any of his films listed? You look at lists of great visual film makers who make intelligent art and you see hacks like Nolan who make M Night Shameathon style one message movies: scene 1 motivation Bruce Willis is Dead, Scene 2 motivation Bruce Willis is Dead, Scene 3 motivation Bruce Willis is Dead, Reveal Bruce Willis is dead, they get listed, Cronenberg refuses to beat dead horses to a pulp so he\’s not on the list? Cronenberg continually being ignored by film watchers is proof that film is not an intellectual art form and that our culture in the Americas is symbolically retarded. If you look at his discography he has made more consistently great films than people like Paul Anderson yet doesn\’t get 1/100 of the credit or mention for doing so? Film watchers are illiterate your supposed to read film just like a book it is a medium of interpretation of symbols. Funny how people who can\’t read words don\’t go near books but people who can\’t read metaphors think they are experts on visual art? Critics consistently can not understand his vision that is a clear sign of true auteur genius because critics are ignorant of symbolism and too lazy to read up on film theory so in its place seek familiar settings and reliance on drama aka boring movies for stupid morons. Hey critics your in the wrong theater if you want to see a play. I agree totally with David on Nolan. Nolan proves film goers are drooling brain dead zombies I saw theaters pact full of anti Bush politics people dying to watch and cheer on George W in a hooded tux called Dark Knight. That film was seriously offensive and overly blatant in its right wing propaganda and government apologetics. They should have had the tag line \”You would like it If Batman did it.\” Basically proving idiots will accept anything including the violation of their rights if the person doing the violating is perceived cool enough. Inception was a complete rip off of What Dreams May Come with out any of the emotional content and so boring I thought I was watching a sequel to the Titanic, Memento as I already stated is just a dead horse beat in reverse not exactly a genius move, yet it has gotten him mention on every list? Naked Lunch is a master piece and the only mention it gets from movie blowers is its too weird and incoherent, from people who gave Happy Feet 10 stars on IMDB a complete piece of plagiarisms compiled into one big dung heap.